Yes, you can use Signal without sharing your personal phone number. Here’s how I did it.

  • Privacy ≠ Anonymity

    Signal = Privacy

    Signal ≠ Anonymity

    Signal was made for privacy, not Anonymity.

    If you need anonymity, don’t use signal. It was never designed for this. There are tools specially made for anonymity. Look at simplex.

    • ssm@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I think anonymity is heavily coupled with privacy, if someone knows my account is linked to my phone number, that’s a very strong form of fingerprinting. Even if E2E encryption is perfect, it takes one bad actor on the the reciever end of my message to both identify who I am through my phone number and leak my message. If just my message is leaked and there’s no fingerprint leading to me, I am still safe. Real example: It took Proton leaking the IP address of a climate activist to the state to get them arrested, not a hole in their E2E mail encryption. A phone number is potentially an even stronger identifier.

    • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      If I asked 10 people to give me their home address, they’re not going to care whether someone defines that as privacy or anonymity. But signal’s reliance on phone number’s (which are easily linked to your identity and home address in most countries) as the primary identifier means giving away just that.

      Why do people feel the need to split hairs with these terms?

      • Manmoth@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Why do people feel the need to split hairs with these terms?

        He’s not splitting hairs. It’s just a different value proposition. I don’t like the phone number requirement either but it makes sense to your average normie who realizes SMS is exposed plaintext. Something like an anonymous seed phrase as the key to your account would confuse most people. Email would be an improvement but it’s at best pseudonymous.

  • refalo@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    tl;dr the sms verification falls back to voice and they just used a payphone.

    I guess if you count the airport full of cameras they went to to do this as “anonymous”, then sure :)

    • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      That risk is not just theoretical. I made a test account (on another service; not Signal) using a free anonymous SMS number. A few months later, the account had been hijacked.

      Of course, if it’s a disposable account, then having it hijacked after you’re done with it might be a good thing.

      • Greg Clarke@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Signal has account pins now so I don’t think the attack vector is as large as it used to be

            • PoorPocketsMcNewHold@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              Register a new account over that phone number. They can’t get into any previous accounts register with that phone number. They could potentially manage to find the pin if the previous user really used a guessable one, but then again, they won’t be able to check the previous messages and the linked owner of that account will be warned of that new connection.

              • atro_city@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                I don’t think that’s possible with a registration lock unless you are inactive for longer than 7 days.

                Enabling a registration lock triggers a 7-day inactivity timer if your number is registered on another device.

    • leanleft@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      ”It’s important to maintain control of this phone number."

      I strongly feel that this is false.

        • leanleft@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          If someone trys to register with an existing number then it wont work if its already being used.

          • refalo@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            Got a source for that? There have already been multiple contradicting sources posted saying this isn’t true.

            • leanleft@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              I cant find any information that discusses the security risk. But it would seem that this transfering all content to the owner of the phone number is a standard feature.
              So, maybe its not discussed because it doesn’t frequently happen.
              It doesnt seem like a trustworthy way to ensure users content remains secure.

  • Dymonika@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    And sometimes they don’t work at all (that was my experience when I tried using a Google Voice number to sign up for Signal).

    I’ve been using a GV number with no problem all this time. 🤷🏻‍♂🤨

  • ambitiousslab@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    How I Got a Truly Anonymous XMPP Account:

    • Open my client (e.g. Conversations, Monal, Dino)
    • Pick a random server, username and password
    • Click register

    Sorry, it’s a cheap joke, but it still baffles me that Signal requires a phone number, so I felt I had to post it :)

    Of course, this is not XMPP-specific either, just my protocol of choice, there are many other open alternatives that also offer such functionality.

    • merde alors@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      and then you can anonymously chat with yourself because no one else will bother installing that favorite app of yours!

      I’ve been trying to get people off WhatsApp for who knows how many years now. With Signal, i have a chance of convincing people. When you start talking about matrix or session or SimpleX or ???, people stay on WhatsApp

      • ambitiousslab@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Different strokes for different folks! I’ve been fortunate enough that many of my family and friends have been happy enough to follow me.

        But I don’t disagree with you, Signal has a much more recognisable brand and better user experience. These are things that we need to improve if we’re going to get anywhere near the level of adoption Signal has.

    • EngineerGaming@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      And - gasp! - you can do it from your computer directly! No Android emulators, no inconvenient command-line client!

    • BrikoX@lemmy.zipOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s there for a reason. You can’t easily create a spam waves if you need a phone number to create an account. And they added usernames now, so you don’t need to share your phone number with people you want to talk to. It’s just there to create an account and can be hidden after that.

      There is Session, that uses UUIDs for names with no phone number requirement, which is basically a fork of Signal with decentralized Loki on top of it.

      • sqgl@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Isn’t spoofing a phone number easy for scammers? If so, I don’t understand why there is (admittedly) so little spam on Signal.

        Does Signal require 2FA upon registration? (I cannot recall)

        • BrikoX@lemmy.zipOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Spoofing just changes the displayed called/sender ID, not the actual number. They would still need real numbers for each account. And they block a lot of VoIP numbers, like most services these days. And getting carrier SIMs or e-SIMs is a not that easy.

          No mandatory 2FA as far as I know.

          • sqgl@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            No mandatory 2FA as far as I know.

            Then how is the authenticity of a number tested by Signal?

  • TheBigBrother@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    What about buying the cheapest SIM card in a convenience store and activate the service with it using a dumb phone?

    • BrikoX@lemmy.zipOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      That might work in most places, but there are countries that only sell pre-paid cards with ID registration.

      • delirious_owl@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Protip: in those countries, go to the tourist hot spots and walk into a SIM selling shop. Use a thick foreign accent.

        There’s always an industry for anon SIM cards for tourists.

        • Hanrahan@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          That won’t work in Australia. You can buy the SIM anywhere of course, you just can’t activate it. You’ll need proof of ID on line to do that… There are only three operators (the rest are resellers). I am sure there are ways around it but not the one you suggest.

          When I was last in NZ you didn’t need ID must buy a SIM and good to go, not sjre thats still the case though?

    • mipadaitu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s fine for a temporary signal account, but if you let the number expire, then someone else gets assigned that number, and that new person wants to use Signal, they’ll get your account.

      They can’t see your old messages, but they’ll get any new ones instead of you.

    • Cobrachicken@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Usually those numbers fall back into the provider’s pool after a time of not regular usage and get sold again, at least here in Europe.

      • jet@hackertalks.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        The twist they’ve introduced in this article is they’re using the registration lock feature, which means you have a signal pin enabled, so as long as the account doesn’t go idle for 7 days even somebody who gets the phone number can’t use signal.

          • jet@hackertalks.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            The fundamental problem is the signal foundation sees the phone number as the identity. If you don’t have control of the phone number, you don’t really have control of the identity.

            The good news is, they let you change your phone number and maintain your contacts. But if the phone number the account is currently registered to get assigned to somebody else and you don’t change it, then you’re playing the 7-day roulette

  • communism@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Why not just pay for a sim card in cash? Even if your phone number gets exposed it shouldn’t be tied to your identity